We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume | Hacker News Reader

We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

bbc.com

30 pointshvo25 comments

Fortunately, it’s difficult to have too much protein. While we do have an upper limit of protein intake, it’s “virtually impossible” to reach, says Tipton.

This is the most important part of the whole article. You might be able to drop your protein consumption, but overshooting is far better than undershooting, and legumes are one of the cheapest foods you can buy.

As a competitive powerlifter and bodybuilder I completely agree with this article. The average reader of BBC does not need nearly the protein requirements of an athlete, and the daily minimums are very easy to get with a plant-based diet.

Even for athletes, there has been little evidence for effective doses above .82g/lb LBM (lean body mass, which is even lower than total body mass). I only get up to 1g/lb total body mass when I'm in an aggressive cut because of a few reasons:

1. Protein and fiber are the two most satiating of nutrients

2. Protein has the highest thermic effect (meaning it requires more energy to burn than other macronutrients, so given 2000 kcal of protein vs carbs, you'll burn more calories simply eating the protein).

> "Most experts agree with Tipton that protein is best consumed in food instead of supplements. But there are some exceptions, such as athletes who find it difficult to hit their daily protein targets"

Is protein from food inherently better than the protein you get from a supplement?

Food tends to have some nice micronutrients that supplements lack. There's probably nothing wrong with adding supplements to a diet that is otherwise complete.

Maybe, but the reasons why can be flipped on food, though with more difficulty.

Namely stuff done to the supplement at the point of production which makes it appear to be something it's not. For instance, with respect to protein supplementation, a number of protein powders a couple years back were accused of fudging the numbers by pumping up the nitrogen count using cheaper amino acids, so rather than getting strictly whey protein, you were getting whey protein cut with cheap non-essential amino acids like creatine, glutamine, cysteine, glycine, etc.

Then there's contaminants to worry about, as I remember reading something about heavy metals making it's way into whey from China or something.

Technically they can do similar things with cuts of meat, but I imagine that's more difficult to get away with unless it's processed meat.

That being said, I still buy the cheap bottom shelf whey protein from walmart to make up for dietary deficits when I'm too lazy to cook beans or something.

Probably has to do with bioavailability, similar to vitamins from food vs vitamin supplements.

The most popular (and probably most-heavily marketed) protein supplement -- whey protein isolate -- actually has very high bioavailability compared to animal and non-animal protein sources.

Anything coming from a factory can't be good, to paraphrase pollan. ( Don’t eat anything your great‐grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food)

Not sure if we can even come up with a definition for 'better' , seems like we would have to run some long term study in an extremely controlled circumstances.

When I told people in the past I'm a vegetarian they often ask "buhhhh how did you get your proteeeeinz?"

They've often been misled by the meat and agriculture industry

It's not just about getting "proteins", it's about getting the right coverage of all amino-acids, isn't it?

Vegans need to mix and match their protein in specific fashion to get it right. It is certainly not impossible, but it's not as simple as eating an egg.

Protein sources that are not complete don't need to be mixed and matched in any specific fashion. Those depending solely on non-complete proteins just need to make sure they eat a variety and not try to get all their protein from one source. They don't need to eat specific esoteric combinations or even to ensure they cover all the essential amino acids in a single meal.

Eggs - and also milk - are both complete protein sources, so it can be as simple as eating them as part of a wider diet if they are not restricted.

There is a feedback loop between the over-availability of protein, the way it's marketed, and our eating habits. A global meat eating detente (I'm not saying we should all become vegetarian) would be good for the environment, animal welfare, and public health. It would only be bad for a handful of massive corporations.

The world is a series of collective action problems.

Don't forget growth. Those freed resources will not magically remain unused. Food prices will fall and more humans will be born. Finally, you will have exchanged cows for humans.

There will be less methane but more humans driving cars and living in concrete buildings. Will that be good for the environment?

People have become so convinced of madeup truths to argue for meat consumption like "WHERE WILL YOU GET YOUR PROTIEN??". This fake science designed to sell products needs to end. I'm glad there's some reporting on it but how can you re-educate the public when their former education on the matter was profit-boosting lies?

offtopic: Why does this site consistently serve me thumbnails-as-hero-images? I'm starting to think its intentional but maybe something is wrong on my end.

re: offtopic: A lower quality hero is loaded first for me, then after a half second the high quality loads.

I like to think of myself as a lower-quality hero

Put another way...we don't need as much __animal__ protein as we consume.

It takes a significant amount of veg crops to feed an animal (chicken, cow, pig, etc.) But as long as we over consume animal protein there will be justification for GMOs.

What has no justification is throwing away 90% of the nutrients just so the rest becomes "steak". Other than that, GMOs still increase yield, allowing for less pesticide, water and land use.

From Monsanto? Really??

There is justification for GMOs regardless. The justifications are simply more or less strong depending on the market climate.

Please explain.

There's always justification for genetically-modified foods from a producer's perspective, in that improving yields by reducing time-to-ripen, improving disease resistance and other attributes by means of genetic modification is simply 'good business'. The justification to use genetic modification is of course always potentially counter-balanced by consumer backlash to GMOs.

Eliminating the need for such modification -- for the sake of the argument -- does not negate the argument for genetic modification from a business perspective. It may weaken it to the point that it's not good practice, but never outright negates it.

(Note that this isn't an argument for GMOs, just an argument that they can be justified from a producer's perspective as merely a business function.)

And all that leads back to yield. The need to increase yield is a myth. A myth paid for and perpetuated by those who benefit from that myth.

Let's not be naive.

p.s. A couple years ago Bloomberg did a feature on farming and GMOs. Over the course of the entire article there was not a single mention about health, nutrition, etc. We're talking about food. Not widgets. We're talking about health. Not some scientist with a hard-on for fame and fortune.

Again. Let's no be so naive.

It's not clear to me what a Bloomberg writer's omissions in an article have to do with my own so-called naivety about food production, so I really can't comment on...whatever it is you're insinuating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com